Detailed Information on the
Science and Technology: Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Assessment

Engaging in dialogue with the GAO, IG and other independent evaluators, to the greatest extent practicable, to encourage them to develop comprehensive evaluations that will look at: the effectiveness of the program; coordination between the different countermeasures portfoilios; and coordination with similar programs outside of DHS.

Conduct annual assessment of program and project milestones.

Collect requirements from customers and made adjustments in current and out year plans.

Developing a comprehensive strategic plan that includes specific actions and milestones, quantitatively defines costs and benefits and outlines specific roles and responsibilities for program partners and the programs in general. To be completed by?

Establishing baselines and targets for long term, annual and efficiency measures in FY 2008. Begin demonstrating results in FY 2007.

Developing an expenditure plan that lays out schedules, tracks data on an annual basis and ensures that the expensidures are consistent with the mission and goals of the overarching Countermeasures program.

Identifying all program partners, customers and end users for all programmatic initiatives. Developing collaboration and coordination plans for each partner.

Conduct assessment of program and project milestones.

Develop annual 5 Year Research and Development Plan.

Measure: Percentage of capability restored to normal operations after a chemical attack.

Explanation:This measure demonstrates the progress against the program's prototyping of an effective capability that can restore key infrastructure to normal operations after a chemical attack.

Measure: Number of technologies undergoing research, development, testing or evaluation (RDT&E). (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The Directorate of Science and Technology works with its customers to identify capability gaps. This measure reports on the number of technologies in development that have the potential to meet the performance goals of our customer base such as false alarm reduction, increase of throughput, and reduction of operational cost.

Measure: Number of new or improved technologies available for transition to the customers at a technology transition level (TRL) 6 or above. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The number of technologies includes those that have reached a maturity level of TRL 6 or above; this indicates that a technology is ready for demonstration. These technologies will be transitioned to the primary customer, the Transportation Security Administration.

Measure: Number of new integrated next generation systems at a technology readiness level (TRL) 6 or above undergoing concept demonstration for check point, check baggage, and cargo. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:The number of technologies includes those that have reached a maturity level of TRL 6 or above; this indicates that a technology is ready for demonstration. These technologies will be transitioned to the primary customer, the Transportation Security Administration.

Measure: Number of research initiatives undertaken and completed within anticipated timeframes.

Explanation:Measures and tracks the progress of the program in undertaking basic research projects intended to bring about a generation advance in explosives countermeasures that will detect, interdict, or mitigate the consequences of the use of explosives and other conventional means in terrorist attacks against population, mass transit, civil aviation, and critical infrastructure.

Measure: Percentage of Explosives Division milestones that are met, as established in the fiscal year's budget execution plan. (New measure, Augsut 2007)

Explanation:The program has established a set of milestones that are necessary for achieving the goals and objectives of the program. These milestones are presented in the program's portion of the Science and Technology Directorate's fiscal year budget execution plan, which details the allocation of dollars and projected accomplishments for the year.

Measure: Percentage of Explosive research program costs allocated for administration. (New measure, August 2007)

Explanation:This measure identifies the amount of research and development funding that is being used for administration which includes travel, SETA costs, IPAs, etc.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program is to enhance the Nation's capability to anticipate, prevent, protect, respond to and recover from chemical and explosive attacks through interagency leadership and the conduct of innovative research, development, and technology transition. The program focuses primarily on thwarting off terrorist attacks against the population, mass transit, civil aviation, and critical infrastructure, without impeding the flow of commerce

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 302(2); National Strategy for Combating Terrorism; Official request and requirements from other DHS components; FY 2007 Congressional Justifications; Chemical Countermeasures Overview Briefs to Congressional Staffers; Science and Technology Directorate Strategic Plan, February 2006; Office of Management and Budget 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, September 2003; Conference Report 108-774, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, October 8, 2004; FY 2006 and FY 2007 DHS Performance Budget Overview; FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report; http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0544.xml

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program directly addresses the need to develop specific countermeasures capabilities to improve the Nation's ability to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from chemical and explosive attacks. In order to more accurately assess and address the respective countermeasures issues the program is comprised of two key components, chemical countermeasures and explosives countermeasures. The program seeks to develop countermeasures against a wide range of chemical threats. Over the past several years, the chemical threat spectrum has expanded to include the traditional Chemical Warfare Agents (CWAs), Toxic Industrial Chemicals (TICs), and Non-Traditional Agents (NTAs). Recent assessments, such as the Chemical-End-To-End Assessment, have identified a number of gaps in the Nation's operational readiness and in the research and development programs designed to enhance readiness to chemical attacks. Identified gaps spanned agent knowledge issues, detection capabilities, personal protection, restoration (decontamination) technologies, laboratory analytical needs, medical countermeasures, and operational needs such as training and exercises. Consistent with the gaps and objectives clearly outlined through these processes, the program is developing technology solutions for detect-to-warn capability against chemical agents (CWAs, TICs, and NTAs) as well as decontamination and restoration solutions for post-event remediation. The program is also seeking to better understand, assess, and model the threat posed by CWAs, TICs, and NTAs. In addition, the program is focused on the need to develop countermeasures to detect, interdict, and mitigate terrorist use of Improvised Explosives Devices (IEDs). Given the limited number, limited effectiveness, and limited deployment of IED countermeasures in a homeland security context (e.g., to protect mass gathering venues, urban mass transit (rail) systems), the need for developing new explosive countermeasures remains a priority. The program addresses these issues specifically by analyzing and developing technology in aviation security in areas of checked baggage, passenger screening, and air cargo, as well as IED Countermeasures. These and other efforts are designed to provide the customer with near-term solutions that are balanced with long-term breakthrough research solutions. In addition, the program is focused on technology innovation that can provide cross cutting solutions that directly enable the development of explosive countermeasure initiatives.

Evidence: The Homeland Security Act (HSA) of 2002; Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment; Counterproliferation Technology Coordinating Committee (CTCC) Report on Chemical Weapons; Draft National Strategy for Homeland Security Science and Technology; 49 USC § 49925 et seq. (Public Law 108-458 § 4013, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004); Office of Management and Budget 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, September 2003; Conference Report 108-774, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, October 8, 2004; National Planning Scenario 12, Explosive Attack Bombing Using Improvised Explosive Devices, Version 21.2, Draft, February 2006; DHS Strategic Sector Assessment: Potential Terrorist Threat to U.S. Mass Transit Systems, March 2006 (one example); Transportation Security Administration: National Strategy for Transportation Security, Draft, March 2006

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program is designed to avoid redundancies and duplications with other Federal, State, local or private efforts. However, there is not enough comparative evidence to prove that the design avoids redundancies or duplication of other programs. The program seeks to counter the threat of chemical and explosive attacks on the Nation-this is specific to the mission space of the Department of Homeland Security. For example, the majority of the work in explosive countermeasures is dedicated to countering high-consequence threats to civil aviation. The key customer in this area is the DHS Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Civil aviation security related projects include developing new, or improving existing, countermeasures for passenger, checked baggage, and air cargo screening. No other organization addresses this mission. Programs also address the development of an array of technologies for homeland security applications in protecting the public and enabling recovery from chemical attacks. These programs are coordinated with and address the needs of multiple interagency partners as well as local jurisdictions. Such programs include development of detectors for responder use and for warning of release of chemical threats in buildings and transit systems, new capabilities for mobile and fixed high-throughput analysis of environmental samples (coordinated with and not addressed by EPA programs), and guidance for restoration processes (coordinated with and not duplicative of EPA). The program also develops the Material Threat Assessments assigned to it by BioShield legislation. Program activities are informed by end-user input and systems studies that identify gaps in current capability and guide technology investment. In order to eliminate duplicative efforts in the Federal government, the program participates in interagency working groups aimed at improving the Nation's defensive posture by examining the roles and responsibilities of other agencies and providing assistance, as needed, to address the most critical gaps in a timely manner. For example, the program works closely with interagency partners including Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of State (DOS) to improve or share development of technology solutions existing outside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as to collaborate and cooperate on R&D activities. Also, the program has been specifically tasked by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to lead development of a National Strategy to Leverage Technology to Counter the Threat Posed by Explosives and Improvised Explosive Devices. This strategy will compare current and potential threats posed by terrorist use of explosives and IED to available technical capabilities (i.e., countermeasures, including those currently in development), identifying technological "gaps" or areas where there is a need to improve existing technical capabilities, define a national investment strategy to address those "gaps," and bring about any needed improvements over existing technical capabilities. In the area of explosive countermeasures, the program evaluates the feasibility of using commercial-off-the-shelf technologies to detect suicide bombers or passengers carrying a leave-behind IED in an urban mass transit (rail) environment, providing urban mass transit (rail) systems with a concept of operations, data on the performance of certain technologies in operational environments, and other critical real-world experience not obtainable or being conducted through other means.

Evidence: Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment; Draft National Plan for Homeland Security Science and Technology; Counterproliferation Technology Coordinating Commission (CTCC) Report on Chemical Weapons; Memorandum of Agreement for an Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN); Meeting minutes for the: ICLN Network Coordinating Group (NCG); Environmental Chemical Laboratory Response Network Technical Working Group (ELRN); Weapons of Mass Destruction Medical Countermeasures Working Groups on Chemical Weapons and Threat Prioritization; Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents ; Conference Report 108-774, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, October 8, 2004; S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Beds: Rail Security Pilot Program, February 2, 2006

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: While no formal reports to date indicate any major flaws, the Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program is incorporating feedback from customers and local, tribal, State, and Federal governments in order to determine and address countermeasures issues. This attention to customer's needs ensures the program understands and meets those needs. At this time, it is unclear if another approach would be more effective or efficient. The program holds frequent meetings with representatives from agencies including the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Science and Technology Council, EPA, DoD, DOJ, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), HHS, and others to ensure that the program is addressing the needs and requirements seen across the spectrum of the homeland security community. The managers of the chemical and explosive program areas chair an Integrated Product Team (IPT), which is comprised of members from the three executing offices within the Science and Technology Directorate. They meet on a monthly basis and agree on all major programmatic and funding decisions. The program develops plans that incorporate the use of effective and diverse resources to identify, nurture, evaluate, and pilot promising technologies (e.g., other Federal agencies, State and local governments, national laboratories, and the private sector). An annual program review is conducted and progress reports are collected from performers in order to maintain effectiveness as a program.

Evidence: 2005 Chemical Countermeasures 1st Annual Portfolio Review Briefs;Interagency Technical Working Group Meeting Minutes; Summary of needs from SRC Requirements Council; Chemical Countermeasures IPT Meeting Notes; Quarterly and Monthly Progress Reports from program performers; Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents; DHS Strategic Sector Assessment: Potential Terrorist Threat to U.S. Mass Transit Systems, March 2006 (one example)

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Up to this point chemical and explosive countermeasures portfolios were considered fairly separate programs and not as one overarching linked countermeasures program. The portfolios within Countermeasures each seek continual analysis and feedback of the countermeasures program from internal, local, tribal, State and Federal governments, as well as customers and end users. End-user input, such as identified needs, and systems studies identify gaps in current countermeasures capabilities and guide technology investment as well as interagency and external requirements. The program addresses the needs and requirements of the user community through interfaces with the Science and Technology Requirements Council (SRC), which is comprised of high level representatives from other components in DHS. The SRC provides the Science and Technology Directorate with a list of technology needs, and the Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program seeks to meet these requirements through their research and development programs. For example, the DHS Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the key customer to the program. The program is conducting R&D in the countering of high-consequence threats to civil aviation. The Office of Grants and Training is another major customer for the program and strives to provide local communities with the technology developed in the program. As mentioned earlier, the program has two key components- chemical countermeasures and explosives countermeasures. The requirements and customers of these two components vary. The program, in the area of chemical countermeasures, has been organized to reflect needs in preparedness against current and future chemical threats requiring capabilities in three key areas: analysis, detection, and response and recovery. In the area of explosive countermeasures, the program is organized by aviation security and IED detection. The chemical countermeasures component has been organized to reflect needs in preparedness against current and future chemical threats requiring capabilities in three key areas: analysis, detection, and response and recovery. The analysis program area supports development of the required fundamental understanding of toxic chemical threat properties and conducts risk and vulnerability assessments based on these properties. The detection program area supports technology development for warning and notification of a chemical threat release and includes technologies responders need to evaluate potentially contaminated scenes. The response and recovery program area provides technologies used in returning a chemically contaminated area to a normal condition. The explosives countermeasures component applies its resources toward the identification, evaluation, and pilot testing of explosive countermeasures in the actual operational environments where these systems would be deployed by end users. The cooperative engagement with end users in conducting these activities (e.g., aviation, rail, bus, and ferry pilots) is one demonstration that portfolio resources and products are already reaching intended end users [e.g., the concept of operations for an urban mass transit (rail) system that was developed in cooperation with the Port Authority of New York].

Evidence: ?? Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment ?? Draft National Plan for Homeland Security Science and Technology ?? CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons ?? FY 2007, FY 2006 and FY 2005 DHS Congressional Justifications ?? Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents ?? DHS Strategic Sector Assessment: Potential Terrorist Threat to U.S. Mass Transit Systems, March 2006 (one example) ?? S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Beds: Rail Security Pilot Program, February 2, 2006 ?? S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Bed (CMTB): Campaign Execution Plan for the PATH Rail Checkpoint Pilot, June 7, 2005 ?? Meetings and minutes from TSA and S&T Directorate joint R&D program planning

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: It is not clear that the measures meaningfully reflect the broader countermeasures goals since Chemical and Explosive countermeasures had previously been considered separate programs. The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program's long-term performance goal is to prepare and protect the nation against chemical and explosive attacks. In addition to those goals, both the chemical and explosives countermeasure components have a few more targeted long term goals. The long-term goal of the chemical countermeasures component is to provide dependable risk analyses, effective systems for surveillance, detection, and restoration, and reliable laboratory analytical analyses to protect the Nation against attacks involving chemical agents. The long-term goal of the explosives countermeasures component is to improve explosives countermeasures technologies and procedures to prevent attacks on critical infrastructure, key assets, transportation sector, and the public. In order to meet its long-term goals, the program has created the following long-term measure: percent completion of an effective restoration capability to restore key infrastructure to normal operation after a chemical attack. This measure demonstrates the progress against the program's prototyping of an effective capability that can restore key infrastructure to normal operations after a chemical attack.

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2006-2012 ?? FY 2006 and FY 2007 DHS Performance Budget Overview ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? TSA and S&T Directorate FY 2006/FY 2007 Joint Budget Briefing to the Senate, March 17, 2006

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program does not have any broad overarching performance measures. For FY 2006 and FY 2007, the target for "percent completion of an effective restoration capability to restore key infrastructure to normal operation after a chemical attack" is 25% and 35% respectively. These targets rise above a baseline of essentially no organized or established capability for restoration after a CWA attack and are challenged by technology, policy, and regulatory issues that are progressively being addressed through leadership in the interagency. In FY 2005, the historical target was X. This measure has ambitious targets each year until FY 2012, which is the current S&T Directorate planning horizon. In order to meet these targets, the program aims to complete tasks within three to five years, and the performance measures for detection programs allow for the development of next-generation technologies as current programs come to completion and are transitioned to end users. Regarding specific technology-based baselines, the explosives countermeasures portfolio is working based on established requirements in one aspect of the aviation security thrust area: checked baggage. In this area there are TSA-defined certification standards already in place. TSA has updated those standards to reflect the current understanding of the threat being addressed, and in conjunction with the explosives countermeasures portfolio, has implemented a program to conduct RDT&E on new technical capabilities to meet this new threat definition.

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2006-2012 ?? FY 2006 and FY 2007 DHS Performance Budget Overview ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? TSA, Acquisition Program Baseline for the Checked Baggage Screening Program, April 2005 ?? TSA Certification Standards for the Checked Baggage Screening Program, April 2006

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: There are several key annual performance measures that are clearly linked to achieving long term goals however they are not broad overarching measures, the measures focus on one porfolio or another but not both simultaneously. There are several qualitative performance measures focused on the chemical countermeasures program area such as "Establish a robust environmental laboratory analysis capability and Forensics capability" and the "Development of a mobile high-throughput laboratory armed with validated protocols for toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agents". These were chosen because the laboratory analysis capability and a mobile laboratory are necessary in order to meet the program's long-term goal to prepare and protect the Nation from chemical and explosive attacks. Each of the annual performance measures established for the explosives countermeasures include specific quantifiable targets by fiscal year. These measures account for specific RDT&E activities conducted by the explosives countermeasures program area and where appropriate, include measurement of the desired outcome to make new or improved technical capabilities available to end users. For example, the program area is measuring itself against the "number of new or improved aviation security technologies undergoing research, development, testing, or evaluation (RDT&E).

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 ?? DHS Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) for FY 2007 ?? DHS FY 2006 Performance Budget Overview ?? DHS FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures programs each have baselines and targets for their annual measures. However, there are only new measures that link both chem and explosives. In FY 2005 the program's baseline for the measure to "establish a robust environmental laboratory??" was to complete construction and evaluation of triage laboratory prototypes. In FY 2006, the target is to "deliver two prototype triage laboratories..." and the FY 2007 target is to complete an assessment of triage labs and establish two prototype fixed labs in DC and NYC regions. For the measure "number of new or improved aviation security technologies undergoing research, development, testing, or evaluation (RDT&E)", the FY 2006 and FY 2007, the targets isare 8 and 18 respectively. In addition, the program has established milestones and deliverables for all of its projects and initiatives for each year of development. Most of the milestones for each performance measure are on track for completion In addition, the program has established milestones and deliverables for all of its projects and initiatives for each year of development. Most of the milestones for each performance measure are on track for completion

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 ?? Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures Program Definition Documents (PDDs) ?? DHS FY 2006 Performance Budget Overview ?? DHS FY 2005 Performance and Accountability Report ?? Program Execution Plans for Aviation Explosives Programs ?? Checked Baggage Program, Manhattan II Project Plan

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: It is unclear who some of the partners and clients are with regard to this program and therefore difficult to know if the partners are committing to goals. The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program uses interagency agreements and contracts to ensure that partners commit to and work toward each programs' annual and long-term goals. These documents state the goals of the agreement and responsibilities of each party. The program engages partners through different avenues. The portfolios seek private sector partnerships through the S&T Directorate's executing offices, which award contracts based on a fair and open solicitation. Program managers clearly establish technical goals and requirements prior to commencement of a project for the programs and they are communicated and agreed to by performers during the selection process. Program managers in the S&T Directorate's executing offices require, through the contract terms (for private sector efforts) or interagency agreements (IAA) and associated scopes of work (SOW), that the program partner submit regular quarterly and monthly reports documenting technical progress against the objectives and goals set for a specific effort, adherence to schedule, and expenditures of funds. Program managers in turn use this to assess the effectiveness of the program partner's performance and the overall performance of the program at meeting annual targets and long-term performance measures. Selections to determine the performers that will continue on to the next phase of development are conducted at the end of each phase of development to ensure that continuing performers are able to meet the project requirements as established by the program. The program has established cost, schedule and scope baselines along with major milestones and deliverables annually for major multiyear R&D programs.

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 ?? Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures PDDs ?? Interagency working group meeting minutes ?? MOU between DHS and EPA for Collaborative Research and Development ?? MOA between DoD and DHS to Establish the Chemical Security Analysis Center ?? MOA between 10 Federal Departments to Establish the Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks ?? Statement of Work for the S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Beds: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Support to the CMTB Suicide Bomber Detection Rail Pilot (example) ?? Excel Spreadsheet named Rail Security Pilot Schedule 2-06.mpp (example)

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: To date, no formal independent evaluation of sufficient scope and quality has been conducted on the approximately two-year old program. There have been various internal evaluations of the program conducted to date. The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) convened in 2004 and 2005 to hear progress reports from the program and provided perspectives regarding program strategy and content. The program is planninganticipates a more robust, external peer analysis and evaluation over the next six months of both strategic and technical content of the chemical countermeasures program area against national needs. and pProgram progress will also be conducted over the next six months by these same external reviewers, to include former directors of comparable chemical defense programs within other agencies such as DoD and EPA, involving independent peer assessors to augment these early examinations of a rather young program. The assessment will provide recommendations to improve the program structure, management, and content.

Evidence: ?? Chemical Countermeasures 2005 Portfolio Review Documents ?? Statement of Work for Independent Portfolio Evaluation Facilitated by the Homeland Security Institute (HSI) ?? S&T Directorate RDT&E Process Briefing

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program does not have an expenditure plan not does it provide budget requests in a clear and transparent manner. Each year the program participates in a Directorate-wide process that requires all programs to produce a plan for the out-years. The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program had to produce a plan for FY 2008-2012 earlier this year. This plan, the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) incorporates its budget request, performance measures, milestones, as well as justifications between each year's requests. This plan was provided to the Department in addition to other S&T Directorate programs in March 2006. A similar process occurred last year in January-March 2005 that ultimately led to the development of the FY 2007 DHS Congressional Justification. In the justification, the program identifies its goal, its annual measure and its FY 2005 actual against its target. It clearly states the FY 2005 accomplishments and how the FY 2006 and FY 2007 funds will be utilized. In FY 2006, the explosives countermeasure component's aviation security thrust area budget detailed costs for seven different investment areas: checked baggage, passenger screening, air cargo, aircraft hardening, infrastructure protection, conveyance protection, and independent test and evaluation with an annual budget for each extending over the FY 2006 to FY 2012 planning horizon. Activities in each of the investment areas are directly related to the portfolio's annual and long-term performance measures [i.e., the performance measure sets a quantified goal for the number of technologies undergoing RDT&E or operational testing and evaluation (OT&E)]. In addition, the program has developed Program Decision Documents (PDDs); these documents include defined goals, objectives, milestones, and deliverables for the program. The continuation of funding to individual programs is tied to completion of activities outlined in the PDDs. This aids planning for the outyears and feeds budget decisions. The FY 2007 DHS Congressional Justification contains a section that connects the programs long-term goals and long-term measures to the budget request. The performance of the program will be taken into consideration during the development of the FY 2008 DHS Congressional Justification.

Evidence: ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2006 and FY 2007 ?? Chemical and Explosives Countermeasure Program Decision Documents ?? FY 2006 and FY 2007 DHS Congressional Justifications ?? Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Budget Spreadsheet

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: To date, no formal independent report has identified that the Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program has strategic planning deficiencies; however several items and processes have been evaluated within the program as well as within the Science and Technology Directorate and the Department of Homeland Security. The program participates in a directorate-wide strategic planning process to guide budget requests and funding decisions. This process is informed by the S&T Directorate's Strategic Plan, and consists of four main sub-processes: 1) needs and risk assessment, 2) strategic planning, 3) program definition, and 4) program execution. The first two sub-processes ensure that the S&T Directorate, through its portfolios, considers user needs, available intelligence, big-picture risks, national and program goals, and inputs from other external agencies and advisory bodies to establish its annual RDT&E program. The second two sub-processes provide a framework for program execution using the best available systems engineering and program management techniques. This process helps to identify and address potential deficiencies. The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program participates in this process each year. Additionally, for the FY 2008-2012 strategic planning cycle, the programs more completely addressed milestones and deliverables for each program through the development of Program Definition Documents (PDDs). These documents include defined goals, objectives, milestones, and deliverables for the program. During this strategic planning cycle, the program also updated its target capabilities to determine where additional emphasis is required to fill gaps.

Evidence: ?? S&T Directorate RDT&E Process Briefing ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasure program does compare the program effort to similar efforts in programs within other agencies (HOLDER FOR AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE PROGRAM DOES) in order to leverage work conducted within the public and private sectors that supports their long term goal to prepare and protect the nation against chemical and explosive attacks. The Chemical Countermeasures program participated in two FY 2004 interagency efforts directed toward identifying key operational gaps (the Chemical End-to-End assessment, including approximately ten agencies), and the Counterproliferation Technology Coordinating Committee activity directed by Homeland Security Presidential Directive-4 specifically targeted at identifying R&D gaps among the various programs. Interagency participants in the latter included DHS, DoD, EPA, TSWG, HHS, and the IC. The objectives and technical content of the program are entirely consistent with these formative studies. The program does (HOLDER FOR WHAT AND HOW) to assess and compare the potential benefits of the program to other Federal efforts underway. The program works closely with interagency partners including, but not limited to, DoD, EPA, FBI, and HHS to leverage technology solutions existing outside DHS as well as to collaborate and cooperate on research and development activities. The program also participates in numerous interagency technical working groups aimed at improving the Nation's defensive posture by examining the roles and responsibilities of other government agencies and providing assistance as needed to address the most critical gaps in a timely manner. In these interagency working groups, the program ensures that the appropriate agencies are working to fill the identified gaps. In kind, the explosives countermeasures portfolio coordinates activities with other Federal agencies engaged in counter-IED activities. For example, the explosives countermeasures portfolio participates in the Interdepartmental IED Working Group, regularly meets with other staff in other agencies, and supports efforts where collaboration yields benefits for both organizations (e.g., funding joint evaluations of specific technologies, supporting technical working groups and workshops). These interactions enable the program to identify, assess and compare the benefits of different programs with similar or supporting goals. The program seeks commonalities where they exist to support collaboration and maximize all programs' potential benefits.

Evidence: Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment; Draft National Plan for Homeland Security Science and Technology; CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons; Memorandum of Agreement for an Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN) Meeting minutes for the: ICLN Network Coordinating Group (NCG); Environmental Chemical Laboratory Response Network Technical Working Group (ELRN); Weapons of Mass Destruction Medical Countermeasures Working Groups on Chemical Weapons and Threat Prioritization; EPA-DHS joint program review; Conference Report 108-774, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, October 8, 2004

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program has a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions. The program conducts the process through its Integrated Product Team (IPT). As mentioned earlier, the group meets on a monthly basis and agrees on all major programmatic and funding decisions. The group evaluates user needs and requirements, available intelligence, risks, goals, and inputs from external agencies and advisory bodies in order to prioritize how funding will be allocated in the out years.

Evidence: S&T Directorate Strategic Plan; S&T Directorate RDT&E Process Briefing; Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment; Draft National Plan for Homeland Security Science and Technology; CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program regularly collects timely and credible performance information that is used to manage the program and improve performance. Program managers are responsible for tracking associated costs, schedules, deliverables and overall performance data. This information is used by managers in the Science and Technology Directorate's executing offices to ensure progress regarding defined program objectives and that the program and its associated projects remain in scope as defined by the Program Execution Plan. Program Execution Plans (PEP) are highly detailed program plans used in programs largely executed through government laboratories. PEPs outline in extensive detail overall schedules, milestones, and project work breakdown schedules to ensure the contributions of each participant are clearly understood and measurable. They provide the yardstick against which to measure and improve efficiencies of various kinds. The program also conducts an annual review that provides feedback and corrective actions to its managers and performers which can include reminders to the performers to remain on task to complete the identified deliverables and to include perspectives from other agencies. For example, in the Facility Restoration Demonstration Program, a key component of the Chemical CM long-term goal of developing an effective restoration capability, feedback was provided to reconstitute its interagency advisory board to better inform its market survey and to advance the probability of success in developing interagency-agreed guidance for concepts of operations. Information from these reviews is used to adjust program priorities and allocate resources to specific activities aimed at achieving annual performance targets and overall performance measures. For example, assessment of the mobile laboratory program based on field test performance resulted in addition of funding to ensure milestone of transition to user is met at the expense of delay in a new start program. As part of contracts with private vendors, interagency agreements and statements of work with Federal and national laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), the program requires monthly submissions of cost, technical progress and performance data, and quarterly in-progress reviews.

Evidence: ?? Quarterly and Monthly Reports for programs ?? Briefings and Feedback from the 1st Annual Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio Review ?? Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents (PDD) ?? Statement of Work for the S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Beds: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Support to the CMTB Suicide Bomber Detection Rail Pilot (example) ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 ?? Program Execution Plans for Aviation Explosives Countermeasures

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers and program partners, including national laboratories and private sector performers, of the Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. Continuation of funding within the program is based upon performers' ability to meet the cost, schedule, and targeted performance results. Performers are selected for R&D that will meet the technology needs and requirements outlined by the program. As part of contracts with private vendors and as part of interagency agreements and statements of work with Federal and national laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), the program requires monthly submissions of cost, technical progress and performance data, and quarterly in-progress reviews. Evaluations and reviews are conducted to determine the status of programs, with feedback provided to performers to assist in future planning and funding decisions. Continuation of funding for long-term projects is conditional on costs, timeliness and performance.

Evidence: ?? Program Quarterly and Monthly Performance Reports ?? Briefings and Feedback from the 1st Annual Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio Review ?? S&T Directorate Quarterly In-process Reviews

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: FY 2006 has been a year of implementing good processes and procedures to improve the timely obligation of funds. In FY 2006, the Science and Technology Directorate implemented a new strategic planning process, which included the related development of Program Definition Documents (PDDs). These documents define goals, objectives, milestones, and deliverables for programs. They are an essential component of execution strategy to help ensure targeted investments for specific needs. They also provide a mechanism for building efficiencies into program plans. The changes in the strategic planning process, and their subsequent ties to the release of funds for execution, appeared to have slowed the obligation of funds in the first and second quarter. However, while the new strategic planning and PDD process caused a first-quarter delay in funds execution for FY 2006, funds have been obligated faster than in FY 2005. The implementation of both of these processes will ultimately help solidify each program's intended purpose and will improve the timely obligation of funds in the future. It is expected, beginning in FY 2007, that funds obligation and execution will be much more efficient than in previous years due to the new processes discussed above. Program funds are spent for their intended purpose. The program receives quarterly and monthly reports from all performers. The reports allow program managers to track the performers' use of funds to ensure that the funding is used for the appropriate tasks. The program also conducts annual reviews and provides feedback and corrective actions to program managers and performers.

Evidence: ?? S&T Directorate Spend Plan in the Federal Financial Management System (FFMS) for S&T Directorate Change Control Process and approved documentation ?? Quarterly and Monthly Reports ?? Briefings and Feedback from the 1st Annual Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio Review ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Program Definition Documents (PDD) ?? Statement of Work for the S&T Directorate CounterMeasures Test Beds: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Support to the CMTB Suicide Bomber Detection Rail Pilot (example)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program uses procedures such as competitive sourcing and Program Execution Plans to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. Competitive sourcing is used to ensure efficient and cost-effective program execution for projects when private sector vendors are selected to conduct RDT&E. In all extramural competitive programs, the selection process uses an evaluation criteria sheet to score and record each evaluation. Extramural programs that are funded through Other Transaction Authorities (OTAs) have payable milestones tied to them. Program Execution Plans (PEPs) are highly detailed program plans used in programs largely executed through government laboratories. PEPs outline in extensive detail overall schedules, milestones, and project work breakdown schedules to ensure the contributions of each participant are clearly understood and measurable. They provide the yardstick against which to measure and improve efficiencies of various kinds. In several programs beginning in FY 2006, the chemical countermeasures component is inserting a process step (Technology Readiness Assessment) that will ensure that technologies in development meet identified performance criteria before being elevated to next phase of development, resulting in improved efficiency toward the final milestone deliverable. Funds execution will depend on satisfactory evaluation of technology maturation progress.

Evidence: ?? Solicitation documents and selection plans, program reviews ?? Chemical Countermeasures Portfolio Review briefings ?? Monthly and quarterly reports ?? Program Execution Plans ?? Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures Portfolio PDDs ?? Broad Agency Announcement Prototypes and Technologies for IED Detection (05-03), Evaluation Criteria Scoring Sheet ?? Determination and Findings (example)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program collaborates and coordinates effectively with related Federal, State and local government programs through technical working groups and cross-cutting research and development activities. These groups examine the roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and determine what assistance is needed to address critical homeland security gaps in a timely manner. Through these interactions, the program leverages technology solutions existing outside of DHS and develops collaborative research and development initiatives. The program works with numerous Federal partners, including DOE, DoD, DOS, DOJ, EPA, FBI, and HHS. The program also engages State and local end users. For example, the explosives countermeasures portfolio's extensive work with the Port Authority of New York in planning and executing the pilot testing of commercial-off-the-shelf explosives detection technologies in an urban mass transit (rail) environment. In Chemical Countermeasures, a component activity toward the long-term goal involves the establishment of high-throughput fixed laboratories in regional locations, beginning with DC and NY regions. Regular monthly meetings held among DHS, EPA, DoD, FBI, and CDC ensure interagency agreement on concepts and policy formulation. These meetings are also attended periodically by State public health lab directors, and the Portfolio Manager has visited with VA Governor's office officials as well as NY region lab directors and EPA regional officials to assess local/regional support for the concepts. The program works with the DOE national laboratories to develop collaborative research and development initiatives. For example, the explosives countermeasures component conducted a series of four workshops, each centered on a particular area of science in which emerging technology seemed particularly promising. The objective of the workshops was to develop an investment strategy for incorporation in the FY 2006 Program Execution Plan (PEP). The recommended investment strategy will be based on the identification and definition of scientific areas of pursuit that potentially could lead to a breakthrough in explosives detection.

Evidence: ?? Draft Chemical End-to-End Assessment ?? Draft National Plan for Homeland Security Science and Technology ?? CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons, Memorandum of Agreement for an Integrated Consortium of Laboratory Networks (ICLN), ?? meeting minutes for the: ICLN Network Coordinating Group (NCG) ?? Environmental Chemical Laboratory Response Network Technical Working Group (ELRN) Weapons of Mass Destruction Medical Countermeasures Working Groups on Chemical Weapons and Threat Prioritization ?? Executive Summary: Conference on Developing a National Strategy to Leverage Technology to Counter the Threat Posed by Explosives and Improvised Explosive Devices, December 13-14, 2005 ?? Draft Briefing Counter IED State and Local User Requirements Workshop, (filename Counter IED Workshop V5 Draft.ppt), February 22, 2006 ?? Counter IED State and Local User Requirements Workshop, Information Memorandum, March 6, 2006 ?? Explosives Countermeasures Portfolio Program Definition Documents, February-March 2006 ?? Explosives Countermeasures Portfolio Enabling Science Workshop Project Plan and final reports

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Science and Technology Directorate's accounting services are provided by another component in the Department of Homeland Security. The Directorate and the servicing component were independently audited in FY 2005 and found to have material internal control weaknesses due to its financial control. The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program through the Science and Technology Directorate is encouraged to use sound financial management practices consistent with the DHS guidance. The Science and Technology Directorate is seeking ways to improve its financial management such as developing sound financial procedures. Specific chemical and explosives countermeasures investment areas are monitored by the assigned program manager who receives monthly project performance reports from the executing entity. Prior to authorization of invoices for payment, program managers review the expenditures for compliance with project requirements contained in the contract or statement of work. In addition, regular in-process reviews are held within the executing entities and by the explosives countermeasures portfolio Integrated Product Team where activities are reviewed for adherence to objectives, budget, and schedule. The program has several financial management procedures in place to effectively administer program funds.

Evidence: ?? S&T Directorate spend plans ?? Reports from the Federal Financial Management System ?? OMB Circular A-11 ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? Monthly Program Status Reports for chemical and explosives countermeasures portfolios

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program works through Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to identify and address potential management deficiencies. IPTs, chaired by managers, are composed of members from the three executing offices of the S&T Directorate and regularly review management of programs to ensure proper staffing, organization, and funding allocation and execution. For example, within the chemical countermeasures component, the lack of sufficient staff was identified as a deficiency. In response, the S&T Directorate hired a full-time, permanent manager, and a full-time, chemical countermeasures portfolio manager. For FY 2007, the chemical countermeasures component was restructured to more accurately reflect program activities. The program eliminated the Architectures program area and realigned those programs to the Analysis, Detection, and Response and Recovery program areas. In addition to addressing management staff deficiencies, the chemical countermeasures component also has made improvements in the IPT process itself, creating a more open process than in prior years. The IPT now meets on a more frequent basis to agree on major programmatic and funding decisions as well as address any major issues of concern. In addition, annual program and periodic management reviews of chemical and explosives countermeasures programs are conducted within each of the S&T Directorate's executing offices to assess the progress, efficiencies, and effectiveness of specific projects. Finally, the Science and Technology Directorate as a whole is taking steps to develop more rigorous and customer-driven requirements generation and technology transition processes-this impacts the Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures program. The program has worked to address customer requirements by participating in the Science and Technology Requirements Council (SRC). The SRC was established to validate high-level requirements for S&T Directorate programs, including those of the chemical and explosives countermeasures portfolios. In order to ensure the SRC has the best possible information at its disposal, the Science and Technology Directorate is working with our homeland security customers to develop an enduring requirements generation process that is responsive to customer needs and links to our customers' requirements processes. In addition, the program will work with its customers to develop a technology transition process that integrates the standards, test and evaluation, validation, and State and local grants processes. The requirements and technology transition processes, once developed, will facilitate the acquisition and deployment chemical and explosives countermeasure technologies to homeland security customers.

Evidence: ?? Portfolio IPT Meeting Minutes ?? Transportation Security Administration-CTO IPT Meeting Minutes ?? S&T Directorate Requirements Process

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program allocates funds and uses management processes that maintain program quality. Extramural, in this case non-national laboratories, programs are awarded through fair and open competition; this ensures cost effectiveness and the achievement of the threshold level of technical requirements. Both intramural and extramural programs are reviewed quarterly via quarterly progress reports as well as periodic site visits. For example, in several programs beginning in FY 2006, the chemical countermeasures component is inserting a process step (Technology Readiness Assessment) that will ensure that technologies in development meet identified performance criteria before being elevated to next phase of development, resulting in improved efficiency toward the final milestone deliverable. This documented, peer assessment of technology maturation against target performance specifications will be tied to funding execution and ensures overall program quality and performance are satisfactory. For performers selected through a non-competitive process, such as chemical and explosive countermeasures RDT&E projects performed by other Federal agencies or national laboratories, the projects are subject to the requirements of The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535 and its implementing regulations found at 48 C.F.R. § 17.500 et seq.) This requires issuance of a "Determination and Findings" stating that: (1) Use of an interagency acquisition is in the best interest of the Government; and (2) The supplies or services cannot be obtained as conveniently or economically by contracting directly with a private source." This process maintains program quality and ensures the best value for the taxpayer.

Evidence: ?? Determination and Findings (example) ?? The Economy Act (31 U.S.C. § 1535 and its implementing regulations found at 48 C.F.R. § 17.500 et seq.)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program has demonstrated limited progress in achieving its long-term performance goal to prepare and protect the Nation against chemical and explosive attacks. In order to meet the long-term goal, the program created the following long-term measure of "percent completion of an effective restoration capability to restore key infrastructure to normal operation after a chemical attack." As noted earlier, this multi-component program advances against a baseline of essentially no organized and effective restoration capability in FY 2005. In FY 2006 the program has shown significant progress in meeting its end-year target of 25%. The first and second quarter produced an actual of 10% and 13% respectively and is on track to meet its FY 2006 target of 25%.

Evidence: ?? Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) Program Documents ?? PHILIS Field Trial Final Report ?? LACIS and ARFCAM Program Documents ?? Program Definition Documents ?? FY 2007 DHS Congressional Justification ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 ?? Explosives Countermeasures Program Reviews

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Chemical and Explosives Countermeasures portfoilios as separate entities are on track to achieve their annual performance goals however there are no overarching goals for the "program". There are several key annual performance measures that are clearly linked to achieving each of the portfoilio's long term goals. There are several qualitative performance measures focused on the chemical countermeasures component such as "Establish a robust environmental laboratory analysis capability and Forensics capability" and the "Development of a mobile high-throughput laboratory armed with validated protocols for toxic industrial chemicals and chemical warfare agents". In FY 2005, the program met its annual target to complete construction and evaluation of triage laboratory prototypes and demonstrate mobile analytical laboratory prototype respectively. In FY 2006, the program is on schedule to meet its end-year target of delivering two prototype triage laboratories and completing a design and initiating the building of a refined mobile analytical laboratory prototype. Each of the annual performance measures established for the explosives countermeasures component include specific quantifiable targets by fiscal year. These measures account for specific RDT&E activities conducted by the explosives countermeasures component and where appropriate, include measurement of the desired outcome to make new or improved technical capabilities available to end users. For example, the program area is measuring itself against the "number of new or improved aviation security technologies undergoing research, development, testing, or evaluation (RDT&E). In FY 2006, the program is on schedule to meet its end-year target of 8 aviation security technologies. In addition, the chemical countermeasures component is meeting the established annual milestones in their program definition documents. The program has already accomplished some of its FY 2006 milestones, including the Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC) Operations and the delivery of the Portable High-throughput Integrated Laboratory Identification System (PHILIS) Field Trials Final Report. Within the explosive countermeasures component, partners have agreed to specific schedules that should result in its FY 2006 performance goals being met. One example is that the field aspects of Phase I of the rail pilot were completed in February 2006, and the remaining Phase I activities (e.g., analysis of data, drafting a report) are on track for completion within this fiscal year. Phase II of the rail pilot is slated to begin on schedule. The air cargo pilot is underway as well as is the selection process to add more locations.

Evidence: ?? PHILIS Field Trial Final Report ?? Quarterly and Monthly Program Reports ?? Program Definition Documents ?? FY 2007 DHS Congressional Justification ?? FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report ?? Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures Portfolio Milestones and Performance Measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: There are no efficiency measures established for this program at this time. Given these considerations, the portfolios are examining potential measures that can be utilized to fairly track program efficiency.

Evidence: NA

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are several federal government programs that have some similarity of purpose and content with variations in scope to the Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program. Areas of comparison would include strategic development, funds execution, linkage with users, and quality of program management. In the area of chemical countermeasures, Federal government chemical programs were assessed during the FY 2004 development of the CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons, which was an interagency appraisal of applicable R&D programs and gap assessment. Other agency involvement included DoD, EPA, HHS, intelligence community, Technical Support Working Group, and FBI. The program's observation through interfaces with other programs is that strategic development and program management are very favorably comparable, but that funds execution and linkage to validated user requirements are areas where the DHS program is still maturing. The program anticipates that an independent review of the chemical countermeasures program area, scheduled for completion in November 2006, will provide additional perspectives, though without a fair assessment of all related programs by the same set of independent assessors, making a definitive comparison will be a challenge. Within the explosives countermeasures component, while similar in some ways to the mission of other entities, has a different purpose and goals than other Federal or non-Federal efforts, including those of State and local governments, or the private sector. The component is focused on research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) of explosive countermeasures tailored to a homeland security setting. While unique in its missions space the program area, through its interactions with other programs, draws comparisons to eliminate redundancies to leverage resources. The portfolios develops plans that incorporate the use of diverse resources to identify, nurture, evaluate, and pilot promising technologies (e.g., other Federal agencies, state and local governments, national laboratories, and the private sector). This is exemplified through the program's cooperative efforts with other Federal agencies that conduct RDT&E on counter-IED technologies [e.g., the cooperative work with U.S. Air Force (USAF) on the Vehicle Explosives Detection System (VEDS), and the cooperative work with the Army Night Vision Laboratory on the explosives gauntlet].

Evidence: ?? CTCC Report on Chemical Weapons ?? Explosive and Chemical Countermeasures Program Definition Documents

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: As mentioned in section two, the Chemical and Explosive Countermeasures program has not been evaluated by an independent group therefore there is no formal documentation that shows it is effective and achieving results. In just over three years, the program has developed performance measures that show progress in achieving results and is working to incorporate independent assessments. The program anticipates a more robust analysis of both strategic and technical content, of the chemical countermeasures component, and program progress will be conducted over the next six months, involving independent peer assessors including, for example, prior and current other government agency senior program officials, to augment these early examinations of a rather young program. In the explosives countermeasures, the program is in the process of identifying additional resources for independent evaluations of the program.

Evidence: ?? HSSTAC Review ?? S&T Directorate Strategic Plan ?? S&T Directorate RDT&E Process Briefing